LTN Discussion

[Bic Basher]

After pages of allegations against a pro-LTN group, the best their bots can come up with is the last two posts.

[slarti b]

march46 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Traffic is down 12% and cycling up 61%

Where do those figures come from and do you have the detailed traffic counts from which they are calculated? If so, please provide the sources and the base data.

[Spartacus]

Percentages can be misleading as they hide the figures behind then

For example if on a Monday one person walks past a point and on Tuesday two people do

That's am increase of one person but as a percentage its 100%

Without seeing the verified source data then a percentage on its own is misleading

[Rockets]

march46 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Traffic is down 12% and cycling up 61% - the

> schemes aren?t perfect but those are positive

> results.

But that 12% has nothing to do with the LTNs does it? Because traffic across the whole borough was down by at least 7% according to the council's own estimations due to the pandemic yet they didn't factor that into their LTN traffic monitoring results at all - bar the very briefest of mentions in one of the opening paragraphs. Why, because they are trying to polish a turd and convince people the LTNs have had a positive effect when the exact opposite is true?

And the 61% increase in cycling....based, in part, on, ahem, "independent" cycle counts by a pro-cycle lobbyist done at the height of the lockdown that were then used by the council in their analysis.....and to be honest a 61% increase is not enough to justify the disruption the measures have caused....if you're not doubling or quadrupling the numbers then you can't consider it success. Remember the cycle czar claiming cycling increasing 10x during lockdown....our measures couldn't even reach 1x...just 0.6x.....thats failure.

[Doug85]

CPR Dave Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call

> themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" which probably

> doesn't help, but the council have a lot of egg on

> their face here (once again)

Yes, they do refer to themselves as Clean Air for Dulwich, as seen here in very revealing minutes from a Southwark Cyclists meeting in which Helen Pickering, who claims she set up CAD, advised SCC and gave pointers on how to go about getting an LTN on your road...

https://imgur.com/oYbtrq5

 

[cacaolat]

Quoting the ones that said that "traffic has been down 12%"

that is a lie, the traffic may have been down during covid lockdowns, but it has more than doubled on some roads because of this stupid displacement.

[kissthisguy]

Wow. So really the group should be called Clean Air For Side Roads in Dulwich (Which Already Have Air Quality Within Legal Limits) Dirty Air For Main Roads?

It's not catchy but it's a more accurate description, based on that screenshot.

Doug85 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> CPR Dave Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call

> > themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" which

> probably

> > doesn't help, but the council have a lot of egg

> on

> > their face here (once again)

>

> Yes, they do refer to themselves as Clean Air for

> Dulwich, as seen here in very revealing minutes

> from a Southwark Cyclists meeting in which Helen

> Pickering, who claims she set up CAD, advised SCC

> and gave pointers on how to go about getting an

> LTN on your road...

>

> https://imgur.com/oYbtrq5

>

>

[diable rouge]

I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" which probably doesn't help

Splitters!...

 

[Rockets]

It's all a bit incestuous isn't it...the person who set up CAD advising Southwark Cyclists on how to lobby. No doubt then lobbying the council and then receiving funding from the council for said lobbying.....it's a virtuous cycle of self justification...no wonder CAD is trying to distance themselves from the perception they have received funding from the council.

I love the bit where CAD states get to know your councillors...invite your councillors for coffee....

It appears they are no more than a funded council propaganda tool to try and convince residents that LTNs are a good thing/working.

[legalalien]

To be fair to CAD I think I saw on their Twitter feed that they turned down the ?500 funding awarded.

The core problem here is not CAD - the problem is the councillors have (in my opinion- not everyone shares it) given their views too much weight, and that there is insufficient transparency (and also possibly too much apathy / not paying enough attention by constituents until it is too late). Is there a register of local councillors having free lunches / coffees with lobby groups like there is in central government? If not, why not?

It?s the principle of councillors representing all constituents, and a big improvement in engagement that needs attention as I see it.

[kissthisguy]

Yes and no, @legalalien

Yes to your observation about council transparency and cosiness with certain residents / roads / groups. A local gov register is a good idea. There are I believe limits for gifts and hospitality but invitations to coffees or street parties probably don't trigger that disclosure.

Transparency and accountability also applies to CAD, which presents itself as a community group, implicitly with a mandate, to speak for at least a section of the community - in this case local parents. But its actions are all about fixing air for side roads - where air pollution is least poor, and it lobbies for interventions that CAD must know increase congestion and traffic on main roads. It's clear that CAD don't act for or represent parents and families on main roads, which explains their silence about Croxted, East Dulwich Grove, etc. This is where your apposite point about cllrs giving certain voices too much weight. I agree wholeheartedly. If you look at CAD in comparison with Mums for Lungs, MFL do say who their main activists are, and they do advocate for main roads too, like Croxted. In fact friends there say they have been hardworking and helpful in writing to councillors to try to find a solution

Another issue is the same clutch of people turning up within key stakeholder groups, which could have a distorting effect on the discourse. We can't know if CAD's leading lights are active in the Dulwich Society or Southwark Cyclists or the Herne Hill Forum (for example) because they don't disclose their main activists. They should.

> awarded.

>

> The core problem here is not CAD - the problem is

> the councillors have (in my opinion- not everyone

> shares it) given their views too much weight, and

> that there is insufficient transparency (and also

> possibly too much apathy / not paying enough

> attention by constituents until it is too late).

> Is there a register of local councillors having

> free lunches / coffees with lobby groups like

> there is in central government? If not, why not?

>

> It?s the principle of councillors representing all

> constituents, and a big improvement in engagement

> that needs attention as I see it.

[CPR Dave]

LA, does that mean that they admit that they applied for funding and that they were awarded funding and then decided they didn't want it after all, but only once t was too late for someone else to be granted that money, or possibly that they never applied for it but the council embarrassed them by awarding them some money anyway?

It doesn't make much sense or seem equitable whichever way it is looked at tbh

[Bic Basher]

I really hope this whole affair is exposed in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs.

[legalalien]

I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post.

Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are as opposed to the ?right thing to do? considerations. Something to idly ponder.

CPR Dave Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LA, does that mean that they admit that they

> applied for funding and that they were awarded

> funding and then decided they didn't want it after

> all, but only once t was too late for someone else

> to be granted that money, or possibly that they

> never applied for it but the council embarrassed

> them by awarding them some money anyway?

>

> It doesn't make much sense or seem equitable

> whichever way it is looked at tbh

[Rockets]

Per CPR's point, if CAD applied for funding in 2020 and were awarded it yet decided not to accept it I wonder what the catalyst for turning it down was?

The fact they are making a point now of saying they are not funded by Southwark could it be that someone involved in the group would have been precluded from receiving council funding money?

The plot thickens.....

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post.

>

> Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add

> Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap

> list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are

> as opposed to the ?right thing to do?

> considerations. Something to idly ponder.

>

>

>

> CPR Dave Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > LA, does that mean that they admit that they

> > applied for funding and that they were awarded

> > funding and then decided they didn't want it

> after

> > all, but only once t was too late for someone

> else

> > to be granted that money, or possibly that they

> > never applied for it but the council

> embarrassed

> > them by awarding them some money anyway?

> >

> > It doesn't make much sense or seem equitable

> > whichever way it is looked at tbh

Not buying point 1 at all, that reads like a smokescreen. I think point 2 is far more interesting - I think the truth behind their decision not to take it is hidden somewhere in point 2.

I wonder what links they really have to the council or Labour party. Or is there something else that made them refuse the funding - did any other of the groups that lobby for LTNs submit funding applications at that time - EDSTN, Mums for Lungs etc?

A lot of pro-LTN supporters question who is behind One Dulwich etc maybe it's time to turn the spotlight on some of the "local" pro-LTN lobby groups.

Helen Pickering's testimony to Southwark Cyclists looks well orchestrated and coordinated.

[heartblock]

When do we get to see the data for peak times when CYP are walking to school on ED Grove - what is the NOx and PM level when there is idling traffic on ED Grove and hundreds of children walking to school?

Islington apologises after wrongly boasting low traffic neighbourhoods reduced pollution, when pollution actually increased on major school roads after LTN implementation. They have also published incorrect traffic counts.

Mmmhhhh....sounds strangely familiar. this is why it's important to scrutinise the data - the ED Grove 'central' data as published by Southwark in their LTN claims of success - is not a 'count' by an active counter pre and post LTN - that shows a decrease in traffic on ED Grove and it is about time Southwark also considered an apology too, for what appears, on scrutiny of the raw data, a possible misleading claim.

Questionable data and the apparent exposure that there appears to have been no due diligence for funding requests in the past from individuals. From the information that others on this thread have found - the 'group' was created via WatsApp during five years of lobbying, by a couple of individuals in order to have two roads closed "invite them for coffee, invite them for street parties" framing the 'group' as some sort of lobby group for all of East Dulwich, rather than really being a lobby group for two leafy roads. It is definitely material for any investigative journalist.

[heartblock]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/council-apologises-ltns-increase-pollution/

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post.

>

> Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add

> Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap

> list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are

> as opposed to the ?right thing to do?

> considerations.

Something to idly ponder. Looking back at @legalalien's post about the Clean Air Dulwich funding (which they now say that they declined, fair enough), there is an interesting application from Grove Vale Residents (Melbourne Grove, Derwent Grove) for street parties.

Could it be possible that multi-hatwearing members of CAD are also members of Grove Vale Residents, who get funding from Southwark (?500!) for street parties, which they then invite councillors to, with the intention of getting their road closed?

As Private Eye would say, I think we should be told!

[Doug85]

Wasn't there a ruckus about this funding after the East Dulwich LTNs first went in and residents put up some pretty nasty Halloween decorations that took the proverbial out of the businesses on Melbourne Grove? 'You'll be dead next' outside their businesses etc and had some kind of party. It was pretty bad. Seem to recall EDSTN account tweeted Councillor Victoria Olisa went to the Halloween thing they threw.

As if the advice to get local councillors on board with your LTNs by inviting them to street parties wasn't crass enough, it sounds like there is now a very good chance of overlap of lobby group members and residential groups that received money for street parties. Definitely Helen of CAD, (isn't she also EDSTN Twitter as well?) and lives on one of the roads is on record advising other lobby groups to use street parties to get local councillors on side and romance them over LTNs.

Maybe one of them if on here they can tell us what they spent that ?500 on and if any of CAD and councillors attended?

[legalalien]

I've just seen the video for another "reimagined" junction at Herne Hill, the design of which seems to have been commissioned by the Herne Hill Forum - does anyone have any idea by who exactly, or who funded this?

It looks like a recipe for absolute disaster.

Where is the motor traffic coming from West Dulwich and heading towards, say the hospital or East Dulwich going to go when the Dulwich closures are in place? Either South Circular/ Lordship Lane or.. Dulwich Road towards Brixton and then ...somehow through the various LTN closures there? Am I missing something?

I gather that the HHF plan to consult (not sure who or on what basis?) AFTER the May elections so it doesn't become a political football? I can't see how Southwark, Lambeth or TfL could agree to this, given their statutory duties to manage the network.

[heartblock]

?500-650 a year since 2011, although they asked for over ?1000 in 2011!

[Rockets]

There have certainly been rumours that many of the lobby groups are the same small group of people creating multiple accounts to suggest broad support for their initiatives.

Something has happened to act as the catalyst for CAD to refuse the funding they were awarded in 2020. I wonder if the council did some due diligence and realised much of the funding was going to the same people under different group names - now that might warrant a council investigation about fraudulent applications!

BTW on a potentially linked subject, that stage managed call the councillors held for the Melbourne Grove closures where they only took comments and questions from some from the street residents group- was it recorded and is there a link to it anywhere?

[heartblock]

A bit like the stage managed 'data'?

[northernmonkey]

Wasn?t there a ruckus? No- I think that the owner of Fashion Conscience tried to create one but really it was pretty much a ?reach? given all the signs were puns on words. She?s been against the closures from the outset claiming a drop in business, but from memory her Grove Reopen group was set up the week the planters went in. So essentially she was ideologically opposed to the planters and has been trying to reverse engineer her position since!

Doug85 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wasn't there a ruckus about this funding after the

> East Dulwich LTNs first went in and residents put

> up some pretty nasty Halloween decorations that

> took the proverbial out of the businesses on

> Melbourne Grove? 'You'll be dead next' outside

> their businesses etc and had some kind of party.

> It was pretty bad. Seem to recall EDSTN account

> tweeted Councillor Victoria Olisa went to the

> Halloween thing they threw.

>

> As if the advice to get local councillors on board

> with your LTNs by inviting them to street parties

> wasn't crass enough, it sounds like there is now a

> very good chance of overlap of lobby group members

> and residential groups that received money for

> street parties. Definitely Helen of CAD, (isn't

> she also EDSTN Twitter as well?) and lives on one

> of the roads is on record advising other lobby

> groups to use street parties to get local

> councillors on side and romance them over LTNs.

>

> Maybe one of them if on here they can tell us what

> they spent that ?500 on and if any of CAD and

> councillors attended?